Like Raging Bull before it, The King of Comedy is a masterpiece whose cinematic brilliance has become more appreciated with the passing of time. Having said that, the film has little more than cult status: an oddity to casual De Niro fans and an unsettling irrelevance to those hardcore followers who only want to see him play tough guys. If his more acclaimed role of Travis Bickle presents an obviously deranged individual, then De Niro's performance as Rupert Pupkin is, in some ways, more unsettling. Indeed, it is hard at times to decide whether we should view Pupkin's pathetic fantasy world as an exercise in comedy, or indicative of the darkest recesses of human delusion. To my mind, the scenes of Rupert sat in his bedroom cum mock studio living out fantasy conversations with his idol are far more disturbing than anything in Taxi Driver. His performance, especially in those embarrassing scenes of persistence with Jerry Langford's secretary, is masterful. De Niro's performance is ably assisted by a brilliantly under-played role from Jerry Lewis. Sandra Bernhard is equally fabulous as the manic Masha. What sets it apart from other films is that it presents the audience with a question of who is really the crazy one? Pupkin or the millions of people like him stuck in dead-end jobs. That he eventually succeeds seems to prove that, ultimately, that it is western culture that is really to blame. This is a funny, disturbing, compelling and thought-provoking film which really is a tour De force of contemporary cinema.
Reviews
2 Reviews
Jack the Ripper
(1988)
A very well presented, if historically inaccurate account
23 October 2005
Warning: Spoilers
This film is a slickly produced effort, although the claims that it may represent the definitive answer to the mystery are extremely tenuous. The plot is watered-down version of the masonic conspiracy theory, in which William Gull, the queen's doctor, committed the murders to silence a group of east end prostitutes attempting to blackmail the government. The more simple premise of the film is that Gull was simply a deranged psychopath. Yet this already three hour production benefits from this by turning it into a classic whodunit. The suspects it puts forward generally weren't regarded as such at the time, but this matters little thanks to the general quality of the production. There are a numbers of "gaffs" in the film regarding historical accuracy:
Annie Chapman is seen photographed at the murder site in Hanbury street. This never happened.
Prince Albert Victor is mentioned as Duke of Clarence and Avondale. He never assumed these titles until 1891.
There is a bloodhound visible at the scene of Mary Kelly's murder. While there were rumours dogs were to be used, ultimately they weren't.
Emma Prentice, Inspector Abberline's love interest declares a picture she is drawing is "for strand magazine". Strand magazine wasn't first published until 1892, four years after the film is set.
Annie Chapman is seen photographed at the murder site in Hanbury street. This never happened.
Prince Albert Victor is mentioned as Duke of Clarence and Avondale. He never assumed these titles until 1891.
There is a bloodhound visible at the scene of Mary Kelly's murder. While there were rumours dogs were to be used, ultimately they weren't.
Emma Prentice, Inspector Abberline's love interest declares a picture she is drawing is "for strand magazine". Strand magazine wasn't first published until 1892, four years after the film is set.
Tell Your Friends